In a verdict that shocked many for its severity, the Criminal Court yesterday sentenced a former high-ranking government official to 20 years in jail for being unusually poor.

The case came to light in the aftermath of the theft of a large amount of cash from the house of Transport Permanent Secretary Supoj Saplom. The exact amount of cash stolen is still unclear since Mr Supoj’s statements changed as the police recovered more and more bags of banknotes. The arrested robbers claimed seeing bags of cash containing up to one billion baht in his house.

Different explanations have been given for the presence of such a large amount of cash in a private home. While most members of the public assumed that it was the proceeds of corruption, and Deputy PM Chalerm Yubamrung, with his usual clarity, claimed it was money earmarked for interest payments on an interest-free loan, Mr Supoj himself said that the piles of moolah constituted the dowry paid for his daughter’s marriage.

While investigations into possible corruption and false declarations of assets began with great publicity before fading away, Mr Supoj eventually faced only charges of being unusually wealthy.

In his defence, Mr Supoj argued that it would be wrong to compare him with ordinary people outside his peer group and that Permanent Secretaries, especially those in ministries with large budgets like his, were normally this rich. An inspection of the assets of a sample of other Perm Secs revealed the truth of Mr Supoj’s claim and the charges were quietly dropped.

This prompted a 61-year-old grandfather, Phamol Arkong, who retired from government service with the rank of Permanent Secretary, to bring his own charges. Known in his time as an exemplary public servant who eschewed all forms of corruption, Mr Phamol charged various government agencies under Section 157 of the Criminal Code with failing to prosecute blatant cases of corruption among high-ranking civil servants.

In papers filed with the court, Mr Phamol demonstrated that the lifetime earnings of even the best-paid government officials would fall well short of the amounts that the Permanent Secretaries were declaring and claiming to be normal. The court, under instructions from its Permanent Secretary, dismissed the case and instead filed a counter-suit against Mr Phamol for being unusually poor.

The prosecutor brought evidence that Mr Phamol deliberately failed to display the wealth that should be normal for a person of his standing. He travelled to court on public transport rather than in a chauffeur-driven limousine. He sought treatment for his throat cancer at a government hospital rather than at an expensive private hospital. He had educated his children and grandchildren (with whom he enjoyed obviously affectionate relationships) in state schools, rather than shipping them off to expensive boarding schools where they could learn the proper contempt for people less well-off than themselves.

In his defence, Mr Phamol said that he was in fact richer than most of his fellow Thais, that he owned his own modest home and did not lack for any of the necessities of life. He neither drank nor smoked and rather than indulge in luxuries for himself or his family, he preferred to make anonymous donations to various charities where, now he was retired, he also worked as an unpaid volunteer.

In his verdict, the judge noted that the prosecutor had not been able to prove that Mr Phamol was in fact really poor, but this would be difficult because most people hide their poverty. Because they were anonymous, Mr Phamol’s gifts to charity could not be substantiated with documentary evidence, forcing the court to assume they did not exist. The court therefore had to rely on circumstantial evidence in order to decide on the defendant’s intentions. The judge further noted that since defendants who are guilty always lie, the court concluded that his testimony was not credible, which then provided the proof that he was in fact guilty.

The judge said that in similar cases, it was normal to levy a nominal fine of one million baht, which any retired Permanent Secretary would be able to pay immediately out of spare cash lying about the house. However, Mr Phamol’s lawyers had asked the court for a few days so that Mr Phamol could sell the family home and other assets. The court felt that Mr Phamol was trying the court’s patience and decided on a custodial sentence instead.

‘This is a matter of national security requiring an exemplary sentence,’ said the judge in his closing remarks. ‘If high-ranking government officials, military officers, politicians and businesspeople do not acquire large amounts of wealth to flaunt, the economy will not be able to grow, the proper social order will be threatened and the financial security of the state will be in peril.’